CFA part Deux (Page 6)

Easy to fix.

Just get rid of no fault divorce laws.

OK?

Actually, the way Don covered it, it basically boiled down to a "tab A" on the man being inserted into "slot B" on the woman.  As long as the "procreative act" was possible, then the marriage could be consummated and was valid.  It wasn't important whether sterility played a role, or whether conception was even possible, just the procreative act itself was the important part.

I raised the example of a soldier wounded by shrapnel in his lower extremities who no longer had use of his lower body (or perhaps was missing certain parts as a result of his injuries), and Don said that while sad, if he was going to be consistent, then that soldier would not be able to marry since he would not be able to complete the procreative act.

Correct me if I'm wrong Don ( or anyone else able to find the thread ).

Don Does the church have any ruling over a state given marriage? And I am not talking about if the people are catholic  but in a court of law does a church have any power over a state given marriage license?

they are evil.  This coming from the anti obesity group and anti drug group.  I swear they put crack into there chicken.

according to the site below Abraham had 3 wives. 

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/polygamists/abraham/

You are right.  there is not quite a bit of evidence but there are potentially some instances. (I have included Boswell recognizing full well that he is controversial.)

Just a few references.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uocp-acu082307.php

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/may/09/marriage-myth/

http://rense.com/general50/cath.htm

A review of Boswell's book: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-holsinger.asp

Essentially I'm saying I'm not right but I'm not wrong either.

Basically correct.

In addition though, there is the full matrix of what makes a marriage,
including all the other things folks would consider reasonable
such as companionship, love, emotional bonding, ect.

So it is a rich cornucopia that constitutes a marriage,
including the normative nature of fecundity through intercourse
that exists in type with a man and a woman if not always in fact actualized.
 

I don't think so.

On the other hand, the Church does recognize civil marriages as possibly being sacramental.
Thus a divorced non-Catholic who was married only civilly and now wants to marry a Catholic
needs to go through a full examination of that previous marriage to see if it was indeed sacramental
before they would be granted an annulment. 

I would disagree, it only matters what the state deems legal. The church does not control property, taxes, legalities, money, medical, and support for a couple. That is the crux of the dilemma, equal rights to all Americans.

I understand.

What I'm saying is that if you aren't calling me evil
then your argument has no foundation.

If my beliefs are somehow bad for society,
then they're evil.

If they're not evil, then they're not bad.
In that case no one should have a problem with them.

But you do have a problem with them. 

The "opponents of gay marriage are evil" narrative is used constantly to great effect.

Proponents of gay marriage seem to want it both ways;
to a great extent they deny the existence of evil and then turn around and claim
that those who oppose them are evil (or wrong, or bigoted, or immoral, ect. take your pick)

Nonsense.

The civil rights movement starting with opposition to slavery was based pretty much solely on religious beliefs.

So the Catholic Church has nothing to do with a state given marriage certificate. The rest involving what matters to a Catholic doesn't really matter in the eyes of the state law.

Ok say some other form of religion comes into power in the US and they cancel all Catholic flowers marriages because they deem them invalid by their religious standards. Would you call that right?

Do you believe gay people are evil?

"No Brad! That's not the part of the Bible to which they're choosing to adhere this week."- MR2TONY

The answer to your question "Why are there polygamous marriages in the bible" is that it was always wrong and most times described to show that actions have consequences. 

Just as it was wrong for David to have sex with his best military commander's wife and then get the guy killed, just as it was wrong for David to have concubines, just as it was wrong for Abraham to take Hagar even though his wife told him to do so in order that he may have children (who turned out to be Ishmael-lineage to Islam). 

If you look at the "rest of the story" on these guys, David paid for his actions with the death of his first born son, then one of his sons, Absalom, rebelled against him and one of his generals killed his son in battle against David.  David says "O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you, O Absalom, my son, my son!" 2 Samuel 18.  He mourned that until he died.

If you look at Abraham and then look at how Jews and Muslims get along today (they both believe the Ishmael story by the way) then you can say his "stepping-out" led to millennia of troubles for both.

Christians believe Jesus Christ is God.  So, when Jesus says:  "Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate." Matthew 19 and Mark 10.

Nothing before that matters because GOD (aka Jesus) said it.  Keep in mind that the OT occured in an age when civilization was a new concept.  So it would have been tough to explain polygamy was wrong to these nomadic shepherds.  Women had no status in the OT.  Christ is the first mention in the bible of a teacher or prophet actually extending some kindness to women (note that Moses did extend some, but not like Burt Lancaster in the movie).  So, for the OT gang, women were not considered a partner in marriage, but an asset.  There is no codified plural marriage in the bible.  There is in Islam, but not the bible. (Islam says you must have enough money to pay for both households basically).

So, to answer your question, why do so many Catholics/Christians believe divorce is ok or why were there bishops who were polygamists... They were wrong and if you look at the "rest of the story" you may find out that things were not always so great after they did those things. Jesus gave one "out" for divorce and that was unfaithfulness. 

All that said, what does Christ say about chicken?  No idea. 

Flowers?

Not clear what that means.

No.

I believe some people have same sex attraction.
Call it gay, lesbian, whatever.

They have it for whatever reason.
Could be nature, could be nurture, could be a bit of both. 

I don't think that having same sex attraction is evil. 

I think he meant followers.

If they're not evil, then they're not bad.  In that case no one should have a problem with them.

Yes, auto correct got me but thanks for ignoring the question.

Oh Followers...

It happened in Rome and (as anyone who saw Braveheart can tell you) in Scotland to an extent.  Christians kept getting married in-secret. 

Same thing happened in Slavery by the way. 

You asked "what if" I said "what happened". 

I don't have a problem with the people.

The acts are another question.

So, which are evil: (1) the state approving same-sex marriage, (2) the act of two men or women getting married, or (3) something else?

Yeah, the marriages would still exist.

Now if the state tried to deny the exercise of rights that ought to come with those marriages
then that would be evil.

In that case, it would need to be dealt with.